Robinson Way Court Proceedings - Help urgently needed!

[middenmess]

The loan figures work-it's just that the PPI is separate and no interest charged on it?

But as there no figures for the PPI other than the monthly figure who knows what the PPI actually is?

 

[middenmess]

POC is on post 22

[havinastella]

POC is on post 22

 

Thats a witness statement

 

Jogs

[middenmess]

Makes note to self not to try and be smart whilst watching repeats of 'House' on the telly!

[lilly white]

ya interest correct it must be getting late.

[pompeyfaith]

I think this is a monthly PPI ( like on credit cards ) instead of a single upfront policy.

 

If this is the case you just have to take each payment made and add on the interest.

 

Now as compounded interest was not charged on the PPI I don't think you can claim compounded rate but you can add onto each payment the 8% s69 stat

 

PF

[pompeyfaith]

This sure is iffy though because if that is the case the PPI payment would be slightly lower each month.

 

The payments total £842.40 over 48 mths

 

If it is a single upfront policy it is even stranger as no interest has been charged.

 

PF

[middenmess]

Hi pompey---I thought you'd find this a tadge intriguing!

[middenmess]

Makes the PPI element 18.72% of the loan--why would they give free credit on it unless the 18.72% already had interest factored in as 18.72% is a strange stand alone figure.

[pompeyfaith]

I think we need site team on this one as it needs pulling apart so it can be defended.

 

PF

[Tinnud]

Have the site team managed to look in on this yet?

[blaser]

hi thanks caggies for your help so far and a special thanks to tinnud. i have been away the last two weeks and tinnud was helping me .i have read through the thread and some but still not sure what way i should defend claim .

[Tinnud]

Hi all,

 

Martin is due in court tomorrow so I'm putting together a defence for him to present to the judge. Can you tell me if this is ok?

 

 

1. No deed of assingment was ever received from Abbey to confirm RW were entitled to collect the outstanding amount. Therefore Martin continued making payments directly to Abbey as per the agreement dating back to 1998.
   
2. Martin has NEVER knowingly paid any monies to RW despite their statement of truth which indicates Martin made some payments to them. Martin was making thise payments to Abbey as far as he knew.
   
3. The CCA is questionable (how???) and there is also some doubt regarding the PPI which Martin is considering taking legal action over.
   

Are there any other issues Martin should raise?

 

Thanks

[cymruambyth]

From what I have been told the fact that the CCA is not enforceable should be a major point. Post 19 showed where it failed because it was a multiple agreement.

In a defence I have done I have cobbled together the following which I am going to try and understand and get copies of the relevant cases. It is also worth taking 2 copies so that the DJ can look at them as well. I am basing this on what I have read as I am a few weeks behind Martin.

 

The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that without disclosure of the requested documentation pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, I have not yet had the opportunity to assess if the documentation which the claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action even contains the prescribed terms required in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by the Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: -

A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

14. The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in point 13, it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore not enforceable by section 127 (3). The court’s attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced.

15. It is submitted that if the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement, then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition, there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the Prescribed Terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document

16. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

17. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order.

18. Notwithstanding points 13 and 14, any such agreements must be signed in the prescribed manner by both debtor and creditor. If such a document is not signed by the debtor the document cannot be enforced by way of section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

19. The claimant is therefore put to strict proof that such a compliant document exists.

20. Should the issue arise where the claimant seeks to rely upon the fact that they can show that the defendant has had benefit of the monies and therefore the defendant is liable, I refer to and draw the courts attention to the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229, [2001] EWCA Civ 633 in the Court of Appeal .

at para 26

"In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;"

[blaser]

thanks for that cymruambyth i am taking 2 copies in as you kindly suggest really nervous as never been to court before and due to my complete breakdown in late 97 and relapse 02 my nerves can let me down .these dms are total leaches and the goverment should act to clear up this industry .even in there statement of proof they lied i have never paid them a penny and will prove this point through my bank statements which will show £5 a month on standing order going out to outstanding services the of shoot DM to abbey national as i remember 10 years ago . also the figures do not make sense and the cca appears to be a multi agreement ppi and loan amount will post today with news of case once again thanks to cag i have hope

[cymruambyth]

Good luck. Try and look confident in the waiting room as well as the court (easier said than done). Refuse to be drawn into any discussions with the opposition beforehand. With my limited knowledge you have a good case, so it is a case of calling their bluff and not being intimidated.

[RobinWayRobinme]

Not sure if this is too late for your hearing, but I've just tried to get a set aside with Robinson Way. Watch out for new docs being thrown in at hearing. The DJ just accepted them and in my ignorance at time did not know CPR's to object to them. Just a cautionary warning as in my case a doic was introiduced that clearly was typed the day of the hearing. Good luck.

Robin

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/212396-trying-set-aside-judgement.html

[blaser]

hi all i am back you were right about lawyer trying to coherse me before hearing ie he would like to have a chat and what my intentions are i told him noooooo . i got into hearing and mam asked me for my reasons to defend my case and i produced above posted letter .and i mentioned no proof assignment ,multiple agreement and ppi i was shaking abit because i had not stated any of this inthe orignal defense ie court order . i asked for ajournment and and my defense was so nearly not allowed . so i mentioned that i had been willing to go to mediation which was offered robs solictors were not then after alot of nerve racking mins and discussion the claim was ajourned for me to correctly state my case and provide copies etc to claimaint . the lawyer tried to get rws costs back but were struck of due to not going to mediation . so a cost to rw .

i have to now create a real defense and clear this up . any solictors out there i am useless at this sort of thing !!!! a battle is won but not the war thanks cags any help really appriciated

[cymruambyth]

Well done for holding your own. Next time (if RW) go that far it will be easier. What time scales do you have to work to?

[blaser]

hi i beleive 14 days the dj said but i am pretty sure that will be from the letter postmark from court the lawyer rw asked for 21 days to respond

[cymruambyth]

I would 'bump' your thread for a few days, then if you have had no reponse, press the red triangle to see if the site team could get someoneto help you. The other thing is to look thrlough the legal success and see if any cases are similar so that you have somerthing to work from.

[lilly white]

well done

[blaser]

thanks will keep bumpingg

[42man]

Just adding some potentially useful links...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/167353-help-court-claim-howard-2.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/157973-welcome-fianance-court-case-4.html#post1704890

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html#post1845581

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/156156-help-mum-being-taken.html#post1665130

[bazaar]

Well done round one to you ding ding